CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[muCephi]

If I were C/P, I would be all hands on board right now finding all the most damaging parts of the emails revealed by other deponents that were missing from Alec's submission, and framing questions to capture Alec's confirmation of the activities therein, and forcing his testimony of details of those activities.

His explanation for the absence of the records itself might be interesting too, considering as an example he argues nonprofit means no money is left after you spend all of it on a profitmaking operation. Maybe he would actually argue he has the right to ignore the court order because the studios are not justified. Whooooo knows.

 

[Noname Given]

So, you could say (As Johnathan Lane did):
"ALEC PETERS’ attorney fires back hard at CBS/PARAMOUNT legal team in AXANAR LAWSUIT!"

and MISSES BIG TIME! (and I love the big stink the Defense made of the supposed confidential document info L&L posted publically when it was ruled:
"The document ("Exhibit H") appended to the "Declaration of Jennifer Jason, etc." filed October 27, 2016 was not properly designated by Defendents (aka W&S and Erin Ranahan) as "Confidential - Attorney's Eyes Only." "

meaning the info the Platiff's included was NOT privileged as the Defense claimed. Also it appears the Axanar legal team not only has to provide a privillage log; but also turn over all the documents (read e-mails) Alec Peters still hasn't turned over - unless the Defense can properly assert under court rules of evidence they are in fact privileged.)

And while it seems Erin Ranahan got a win Re: A limited second deposition of Alec Peters - not really. She wanted to give only two hours and further restrict the scope. The Magistrate gave the Plaintiffs 5 hours - and only limited by the Federal Rules of Procedure -- which in legal terms is effectively the 'unlimited scope' (IE anything related to the case) deposition Plaintiffs wanted.

About the only plus for the Defense is that the Magistrate isn't extending the Discovery cutoff date or ordering the Defendants to re-do another document search. In the end, the fact that both Christian Gossett and Terry Macintosh provided e-mails to and from Alec Peters that Alec Peters himself did not - they STILL have that evidence and will be able to use it (IE question Alec Peters about it at his second deposition and on the stand if this goes to Trial.)

But I would say Ms. Ranahan is not a happy camper at this point - and it'll be interesting to see Johnathan Lane of the 'Fan Spin...'er...'Fan Film Factor' blog spin the above as positive for Alec Peters/Axanar.

 

[Jody Wheeler]

I would agree, but what we are debating is whether or not there is the basis for an argument, not what will ultimately prevail.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't think there's even a basis for the argument. :-)

 

[Jody Wheeler]

But I would say Ms. Ranahan is not a happy camper at this point - and it'll be interesting to see Johnathan Lane of the 'Fan Spin...'er...'Fan Film Factor' blog spin the above as positive for Alec Peters/Axanar.

There's just no way she can be happy with a five hour deposition without limitation. Consider her client....

 

[jamestyler]

Well, that's a technical denial, but the most important part was still granted.

I'm sure Mr. Lane will try and put a spin on this, but the long and the short of it is that Peters has to cough up further evidence orally, and that will inevitably mean an explanation for the missing emails.

To be fair - it wouldn't be hard to put a positive spin on it, form Lane's perspective. Both the word 'denied' and the idea that Peters/RMB won't have to hand over their copies of the emails (unless I'm reading that wrong? Possible after the RMB liquid diet I've had this evening) are enough to create a story here, from Lane's perspective. Thats enough to gloat with the right language (which I honestly expect to read in a few hours).

That said, outwith the creative bias (which both sides of the coin will have), the exceptions made are a good win for L&L in this grand tug of war. The five hour limit in particular shows there's more worth in the uncovered documents that W&S were trying to believe.

I've given up on TV. This is my new legal drama.

 

[RedForman]

I wonder if Alec will throw anyone else under the bus this second time around and if so, who? (he seems to have no compunction about toying with the process here.........)

 

[Smoked Salmon]

To be fair - it wouldn't be hard to put a positive spin on it, form Lane's perspective. Both the word 'denied' and the idea that Peters/RMB won't have to hand over their copies of the emails (unless I'm reading that wrong? Possible after the RMB liquid diet I've had this evening) are enough to create a story here, from Lane's perspective. Thats enough to gloat with the right language (which I honestly expect to read in a few hours).

That said, outwith the creative bias (which both sides of the coin will have), the exceptions made are a good win for L&L in this grand tug of war. The five hour limit in particular shows there's more worth in the uncovered documents that W&S were trying to believe.

I've given up on TV. This is my new legal drama.

@jespah Might have to clarify this since it involves American litigation procedure, but I would assume that if it is indicated in the further deposition that further documents have existed and are within his control then a further application can be made to have them adduced.

Conversely, if he gives explicit evidence that he does not have control of them and it later becomes clear that he does, it will undermine his credibility significantly.

Plus, I assume that most of the emails have already been disclosed via Gossett and Fat Terry anyway.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I wonder if Alec will throw anyone else under the bus this second time around and if so, who? (he seems to have no compunction about toying with the process here.........)

I'm secretly hoping he has a falling out with Burnett if the trial doesn't go well. That'd be glorious.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

You'll have to excuse me if I don't think there's even a basis for the argument. :-)

Well there is, at least from a lawyer's perspective. That doesn't cease to be the case simply because it isn't that strong or because you want a particular outcome.

Weak cases often succeed against the odds so it would be short sighted to simply dismiss a counter argument out of hand just because it's not strong on the face of it....and like I say, we were exploring those counter arguments, not saying they will succeed. To accept your comment that there is no basis for argument for the defendants is to say that their defence is entirely vexatious. I'm sorry, I simply don't agree with that.

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

-To be fair - it wouldn't be hard to put a positive spin on it
-from Lane's perspective.
-the word 'denied'
-enough to create a story here, from Lane's perspective.
-which I honestly expect to read in a few hours

Agree

-the RMB liquid diet I've had this evening
-This is my new legal drama

A most amusing and entertaining post

 

[muCephi]

To be fair - it wouldn't be hard to put a positive spin on it, form Lane's perspective. ...I've given up on TV. This is my new legal drama.

"South Park Legal", I think.

 

[muCephi]

There's just no way she can be happy with a five hour deposition without limitation. Consider her client....

Her partners must be asking her "are we having fun yet?" at this point.

 

[muCephi]

Frankly I hope Alec for his own sake takes a settlement rather than facing that deposition. If Alec had proof he did this whole project on the up and up he would have published irrefutable factual content immediately, considering how willing he is to speak out in his forum and through proxies in every other way. Publishing *proof* of innocence would have been just as easy and more productive and wouldn't have hurt the case nearly as much as trying to cover things up.

A donor lawsuit just needs enough evidence surfaced for an attorney or consumer protection agency to get interested. Depositions of specifics, quoted in a studio motion for Summary Judgment, could be all that's needed to turn Axanar into a test case of consumer protection for crowdfunding. Like that could win, building a for profit studio in the name of pilfered IP, and trying shift the ownership around after being sued.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Frankly I hope Alec for his own sake takes a settlement rather than facing that deposition.

He can't though can he? If he does that his movie almost certainly doesn't get made and he is in breach of him obligations to his donors, which means he'll face claims of up to $1m. Given his need for pro bono representation and suggestion to Fat Terry that there was no money left, that seems an unfavourable state of affairs. Since he is not incurring legal costs he's probably holding onto the hope that his lawyers may be successful and the film still gets made.

Unless a settlement gives him a licence to make the film, I think this is one of those rare occasions where he's screwed if he settles and equally screwed if he loses as if either way he can't afford the consequential financial bill then he'd have to go for bankruptcy.

 

[carlosp]

AxaMonitor's full story, which we broke earlier today on Twitter, about the judge granting most of what CBS/Paramount wanted in emergency motion. Axanar's still characterizing it as 'win.' Learn why.

 

[carlosp]

He can't though can he? If he does that his movie almost certainly doesn't get made and he is in breach of him obligations to his donors, which means he'll face claims of up to $1m. Given his need for pro bono representation and suggestion to Fat Terry that there was no money left, that seems an unfavourable state of affairs. Since he is not incurring legal costs he's probably holding onto the hope that his lawyers may be successful and the film still gets made.

Unless a settlement gives him a licence to make the film, I think this is one of those rare occasions where he's screwed if he settles and equally screwed if he loses as if either way he can't afford the consequential financial bill then he'd have to go for bankruptcy.

There's no breach, according to Kickstarter's terms. Peters is only obligated to do his level best to complete his project. Kickstarter warns backers that their money is a donation they risk losing if the project fails.

 

[muCephi]

He can't though can he? If he does that his movie almost certainly doesn't get made and he is in breach of him obligations to his donors, which means he'll face claims of up to $1m.

I suppose the donors will want to know where their money went if the film wasn't made, yes. And the emails others have given to the studios could very well get published even if he took a settlement, so that could create a pickle. But its take a settlement, apologize, and make amends as much as he can and hope that others will let it be good at that, or have it all guaranteed to come out and become a lesson in law schools. Settlement still seems the better option.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

There's no breach, according to Kickstarter's terms. Peters is only obligated to do his level best to complete his project. Kickstarter warns backers that their money is a donation they risk losing if the project fails.

Wrong. Read what I have said up thread. Peters has a direct contract with his donors to produce in return for their donation. If he fails to deliver then it is actionable on the basis of breach of contract, and Kickstarter not only warns donors of risk, but warns project starters of the risk of legal claims. Furthermore, the Kickstarter terms recognise the direct contract, and that relationship is separate from any direct relationship Peters has with Kickstarter or the donors have with Kickstarter.

 

[oswriter]

A donor lawsuit just needs enough evidence surfaced for an attorney or consumer protection agency to get interested. Depositions of specifics, quoted in a studio motion for Summary Judgment, could be all that's needed to turn Axanar into a test case of consumer protection for crowdfunding.

It's entirely possible that such a lawsuit or regulatory action is in the works and simply has not become public knowledge. Given the number of donors involved, there's a strong possibility that at least one has consulted with an attorney. As for the regulatory agencies, they would not publicly announce that an individual or company is under investigation unless and until they are ready to file a formal complaint.

I know the FTC is aware of the Axanar situation--because I sent an email to a senior agency official several weeks ago. I never heard back, but I didn't expect to. But any complaint sent to the FTC must be logged into their internal system. And if Axanar donors have filed their own complaints, it's likely someone at the Bureau of Consumer Protection would at least be keeping an eye on the litigation.

 

[muCephi]

AxaMonitor's full story, which we broke this morning on Twitter, about the judge granting most of what CBS/Paramount wanted in emergency motion. Axanar's still characterizing it as 'win.' Learn why.

Parents' motion to ground child is DENIED insofar as it may not be interpreted as having to sit on the physical ground. In other specifics, it is granted.